The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

So what I'm gathering from the last two pages is that every anti-gun poster thinks that the only kind of crime in existence is non-violent robbery. Robbers ask for your money. If you give it to them, nothing happens. If you resist, that's when violence happens, because you are evil and you deserve it.

Let me copy those last three sentences with two nouns changed and see what you guys think:

Rapists ask for your _____. If you give it to them, nothing happens. If you resist, that's when violence happens, because you are evil and you deserve it.

How does that one feel? Remember, that while of course we're talking about two overlapping normal distributions, your average woman is much weaker than your average man and has no chance of physically defending herself against attack without a deadly weapon. Your average elderly person is the same. For that matter your average law-abiding citizen doesn't have as much (for lack of a better word) "fight" in him as your average violent criminal.

I don't want to trot out the difference between God and Sam Colt in this thread but I can if I need to.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

Why can't they just restrict who gets guns and make sure they are sensible about the storage of the guns and you can't have them out in public and if you're ever in an incident you can never have a gun again? No problem, right? I know it would take heaps of policing to police it but if there are large enough penalties it should work, right?

A gun in a safe in your basement isn't functioning as a gun. So you don't need it. If you don't have the right to use the gun you don't have the right to own the gun in any meaningful manner. You can't defend yourself with a gun you aren't carrying.

 

[SadakoMoose]

Allowing citizens the right to bear arms creates a certain evel of trust between the population and the government. The government is trusting the majority of the people not to commit violent crimes, and the people are trusting the government to pass laws and regulations that keep guns out of criminal hands in the first place. There is nothing inherently wrong with the gun itself, as it is merely an object. If you want to prevent violent crime, your main goal would be to increase quality of education and life in your country. This is why countries in Europe have less violent crime than in America. If you allowed every citizen of let's say, Germany, to own a fire arm absolutely nothing about their violent crime rate would change. The social market system is doing it's best to keep everyone well educated, healthy, and out of poverty. The only people who would be going around committing crimes with the firearms would be the mentally ill or disturbed, a problem which can be rather easily alleviated with proper background checks and psyche tests.
By banning the civilian ownership of firearms you are saying to the citizens "No, we do not trust you. We think that if you are all violent criminals. You cannot handle this responsibility."

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Personally, I think no civilian should be carrying a gun (guns kept at shooting ranges okay aslong as they stay there), but everyone who hasn't got an asbo should be allowed to carry a sword. It's easier to parry and harder to hit the wrong person with a sword, so it's easier to justify having them as self-defence, plus they're harder for kids to use my accident and easier to see when someone has one drawn.

You just managed to say the most idiotic thing I've ver heard on this website. My standards plummet once again.

I've heard of far fewer cases of kids getting themselves killed because their folks forgot to lock a sword away properly than I have for guns.
I've heard of fewer cases of someone hitting an inocent the other side of the street when they've missed thier target with a sword than I have with a gun.
Headcases going on ramages with swords tend to have much lower deathcounts than tose with guns (and before you give me any of the "if the victims all had guns they'd have stopped the rampage" BS, the fact that these attacks are a SUPRISE means that any guns the victims had would be useless to them and would have just given the nutjobs more ammo).

Besides, sword training is much better exercise than gun training.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Before I say anything else, a Communist is essentially a Marxist, despite the many State-Capitalist dictators who call themselves Communists.

Yea, I'm trying to stay within the context of communists like Marx, Bakunin and Kropotkin. I know Stalin has nothing to do with what you advocate, and I know communists typically have to fight to make this understood. I was thinking about the anarcho-communists when I wrote that because that is the background I am coming from (anarchism, but not anarcho-communism).

Why would you need a gun if you could trust everyone? That is like saying we should all walk around knives, just because we can. It is completely impractical and only leads to accidents.

Lions and tigers? Capitalists? Fun? I don't know. I trust their reasons and judgment. I do walk around with a knife, btw . Pocket knife, but I kid- I know you meant something scary and unwieldy.

If you don't trust someone to not accidentally shoot you, then you don't trust them absolutely. So this trust isn't universal, it's limited to those without guns or contingent upon them not having guns. I think the trust argument defeats itself.

I think you have been too much influenced with this 'freedom' concept. I can't blame you, it's been used as a political catchphrase in the United States since the Founding Fathers. You are saying that you should be able to carry a gun because you can carry a gun, ignoring all the negative effects that would involve, just to have the 'freedom' to bear arms.

That's pretty unfair and sweeping. And it hasn't been my experience that guns preclude trust. I hunt and shoot with the people I trust most. Yea, I've got the freedom bug. While I am American, and all that Founding Fathers stuff is a big part of my background, nothing about 'freedom' in that sense is uniquely American per se. I'm not a strict Proudhonian by any stretch, but its from Frenchies like him and Molinari that American individualist anarchists were getting their ideas. I'm an anarchist, so it's not like I have a particular reverence for the Founding Fathers and all that jazz, although certain among them like Jefferson and Paine have some good offerings. Please spare me the 'capitalist propaganda' routine. I already know.

And before this trust is established, why would be let people own guns? It is impossible to establish such trust under those circumstances. And after that, there would be no need for them at all.

It's like I said before. This manifestation of trust seems to have strict limits. I just think the trust argument is self defeating. I don't see any reason to believe that guns preclude trust or facilitate distrust, or that trust leads necessarily to disarmament.

 

[ninjajoeman]

* Being born with a penis should be illegal because you could rape someone with one.

sounds like feminism

 

[tsb247]

I am going to post this link and let it speak for itself. Civilians with guns are by no means a bad thing. We have the right to defend ourselves, and this right has saved many innocent lives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32426383/

If the shop keeper had not had access to a weapon, the headline would have read differently.

I'm also sick of self-righteous jackasses saying that, "Americans are stupid because they can (and enjoy) being able to have guns." Seriously... Grow up and worry about your own country. It's part of our culture - Deal with it. There's nothing wrong with guns in the hands of responsible people.

ok in the article it says "they appeared as if they were going to shoot" and NOT that they had shot people. so really that man murdered in cold blood several robbers, sure it was called justifiable but really he murdered them

the criminals were NOT shooting them, they were pointing and waving and pistol whipping but they were not shooting them. if he just handed over the money then none of this would have happened AND everyone would have lived

so i don't see why the gun was needed, insurance would have covered any losses and the police could have had a chance of catching the guys and getting that money back

Your response is pure nonsense. If someone broke into your shop and pistol-whipped your employees, you whould do nothing and give them what they want? I hate to break it to you, but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

You would trust your life to armed thugs that had shown you they could be violent? Wow...

If this man had done nothing, the robbers could have simply decided, "Hey, we don't want any witnesses. Kill them so they can't talk after we leave."

If someone points a gun at you, your life is in their hands. If you do nothing, you are pretty much saying, "Kill me if you want to, but please don't."

The man in this story saved his co-workers, himself, and his shop - all while ridding the streets of violent criminals. He did not want to, but he did what he had to do to ensure both his survival and the survival of his co-workers. The fact that he had a gun saved innocent lives!

 

[jpoon]

I hardly would trust this type of survey. No doubt coming from a group of people who are terrified of guns and being able to protect yourself. Fuck waiting for a cop, do the job right and protect your fucking self. Of course there are going to be bad apples in the tree, but you can't chop the whole tree down because of a few rotten apples.

Thank God for the 2nd Amendment in America, at least one country understands how important it is for the people to be armed!

To all Americans who disagree with the 2nd Amendment, I feel sorry for your type. You have probably forgotten what our founders and many of our own have fought and died for, FUCKING FREEDOM... In America!

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

Why can't they just restrict who gets guns and make sure they are sensible about the storage of the guns and you can't have them out in public and if you're ever in an incident you can never have a gun again? No problem, right? I know it would take heaps of policing to police it but if there are large enough penalties it should work, right?

A gun in a safe in your basement isn't functioning as a gun. So you don't need it. If you don't have the right to use the gun you don't have the right to own the gun in any meaningful manner. You can't defend yourself with a gun you aren't carrying.

Nobody NEEDS a gun unless they are robbing someone, shooting someone, or 'defending' themselves. If nobody waves guns around in public and just uses them safely and sensibly at shooting ranges, there will be no NEED to defend yourself against somebody with a gun. Then the problem becomes knife control. And lets face it, would you rather run away from somebody wielding a 12-gauge or a pocket knife.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

Why can't they just restrict who gets guns and make sure they are sensible about the storage of the guns and you can't have them out in public and if you're ever in an incident you can never have a gun again? No problem, right? I know it would take heaps of policing to police it but if there are large enough penalties it should work, right?

A gun in a safe in your basement isn't functioning as a gun. So you don't need it. If you don't have the right to use the gun you don't have the right to own the gun in any meaningful manner. You can't defend yourself with a gun you aren't carrying.

Nobody NEEDS a gun unless they are robbing someone, shooting someone, or 'defending' themselves. If nobody waves guns around in public and just uses them safely and sensibly at shooting ranges, there will be no NEED to defend yourself against somebody with a gun. Then the problem becomes knife control. And lets face it, would you rather run away from somebody wielding a 12-gauge or a pocket knife.

You don't believe people can possibly defend themselves against violence with firearms. You think they're a piece of sports equipment. That's fine, but it means that nobody can really discuss this subject reasonably with you, because you reject the basic premise behind the right to bear arms.

What's the point of shooting ranges in your world? Nobody needs shooting skills if there's no legitimate use for guns.

 

[Klepa]

I don't think any non-americans really have a say. This is one of those situations where there's a bit of a cultural gap between the US and Europe. America had it's gun toting wild west era, while Europeans wore wigs while sipping tea and eating crumpets. Both of them evolved from their respective cultural phases, into what they are today.

While it's true that Europe in general has less gun related crime with it's stricter gun policies, it doesn't mean that the US will achieve European numbers overnight, if they remove the 2nd amendment.

 

[ayahtzeefan]

yeah i think it is stupid how people are getting guns so easily in america. most any moron with atleast half a brain cell can get a gun in this country, its the same with idiots 6 year olds getting airsoft guns because their moms are buying them for them and now look whats happened. now responsible people like me cant get them until im 18. im actually 14 right now but im responsible with them as in i dont take them out in public and i always carry them in a gun case. anyways back to the real issue, heres something i came up with, a responsibility test (i also came up with the idea of maturity test), its basically where if you want a gun/airsoft gun/ bb gun etc. you get hooked up to a lie detector and asked some question just to get a baseline and then asked some question about what would you do in this situation sort of thing and if you fail it you cant take another for 5 years and the next time you take it you get completely different questions

 

[Voodoomancer]

Well, I live in Iceland, not even the police carry guns here. Someone shooting at people happens very rarely. Even then, the Icelandic SWAT team has never had to fire a gun on a call, ever. So the chances of getting shot at all here are nearly non-existent.

What this has to do with the topic is anybody's guess, but hey...

 

[Nova5]

How is that ban working?
I mean, if its banned then it must never be used in crime, right.......right?

As to be expected, poorly. I mean, c'mon - even with a ban, people can still find a way to get around it. Y'know, like converting a 1911 .45 into a fully-automatic pistol the way Capone's henchmen did. We don't get a whole lot of locals arrested with illegal weaponry, but we certainly get lots of people from Mexico possessing automatic weapons.

So yeah, I wasn't implying the ban worked - just saying it prevents civilians from legally acquiring assault weaponry.

 

[Kair]

Before I say anything else, a Communist is essentially a Marxist, despite the many State-Capitalist dictators who call themselves Communists.

Yea, I'm trying to stay within the context of communists like Marx, Bakunin and Kropotkin. I know Stalin has nothing to do with what you advocate, and I know communists typically have to fight to make this understood. I was thinking about the anarcho-communists when I wrote that because that is the background I am coming from (anarchism, but not anarcho-communism).

Why would you need a gun if you could trust everyone? That is like saying we should all walk around knives, just because we can. It is completely impractical and only leads to accidents.

Lions and tigers? Capitalists? Fun? I don't know. I trust their reasons and judgment. I do walk around with a knife, btw . Pocket knife, but I kid- I know you meant something scary and unwieldy.

If you don't trust someone to not accidentally shoot you, then you don't trust them absolutely. So this trust isn't universal, it's limited to those without guns or contingent upon them not having guns. I think the trust argument defeats itself.

I think you have been too much influenced with this 'freedom' concept. I can't blame you, it's been used as a political catchphrase in the United States since the Founding Fathers. You are saying that you should be able to carry a gun because you can carry a gun, ignoring all the negative effects that would involve, just to have the 'freedom' to bear arms.

That's pretty unfair and sweeping. And it hasn't been my experience that guns preclude trust. I hunt and shoot with the people I trust most. Yea, I've got the freedom bug. While I am American, and all that Founding Fathers stuff is a big part of my background, nothing about 'freedom' in that sense is uniquely American per se. I'm not a strict Proudhonian by any stretch, but its from Frenchies like him and Molinari that American individualist anarchists were getting their ideas. I'm an anarchist, so it's not like I have a particular reverence for the Founding Fathers and all that jazz, although certain among them like Jefferson and Paine have some good offerings. Please spare me the 'capitalist propaganda' routine. I already know.

And before this trust is established, why would be let people own guns? It is impossible to establish such trust under those circumstances. And after that, there would be no need for them at all.

It's like I said before. This manifestation of trust seems to have strict limits. I just think the trust argument is self defeating. I don't see any reason to believe that guns preclude trust or facilitate distrust, or that trust leads necessarily to disarmament.

But don't you see that in the final product, communism, proving trust by owning firearms is like playing the "fall back" trust game on the tip of a volcano? It isn't reasonable. Sure, freedom would be abundant in a truly communist society, but people would NOT carry guns. They would not be tempted to do so just because they have the right to.

In a socialist society, guns should DEFINITELY not be allowed, just as capitalizing would not be allowed. It simply does not work towards a better society.


By the way, look at the third post below yours. That is a good example of the kind of people who support guns in the United States.

 

[ottenni]

Yes you (being Americans, i'm Australian so i'm not affected) have the right to beat arms, i mean the king of england could just walk up to you and start pushing you around! And you don't want that do you!

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

People aren't just going to ALL surrender their precious precious firearms at once are they? ARE THEY? I don't know, I'm not American; I don't have a gun growing out of my head, just the one in my pants.


OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SNA-banned

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

But don't you see that in the final product, communism, proving trust by owning firearms is like playing the "fall back" trust game on the tip of a volcano? It isn't reasonable.

Fair enough, you're effectively admitting you do not trust gun owners. So trust isn't the issue here.

Sure, freedom would be abundant in a truly communist society, but people would NOT carry guns. They would not be tempted to do so just because they have the right to.

You keep rewording this assertion without really justifying it. You haven't given me any reason to believe this would be the case. So far, it seems to boil down to certain communists having a personal or aesthetic distaste for guns and projecting that onto 'society'. If you want to make an argument that people would abandon guns because they present a danger to others by their existence, I think that is a reasonable argument. But then, you should drop the trust bit. It only serves to obfuscate.

In a socialist society, guns should DEFINITELY not be allowed, just as capitalizing would not be allowed. It simply does not work towards a better society.

I'm trying to limit this to gun control and not make it an argument about Marxism in general. But what you think "does not work towards a better society" is not likely to sway me on its own. So far, it's just an assertion without justification- one might call that an opinion. Once again, if it's a safety issue, that may be a good argument, but I don't see what that has to do with trust.

By the way, look at the third post below yours. That is a good example of the kind of people who support guns in the United States.

Uh huh. Do you really want me to start listing people who support gun control, starting with every dictator *cough Stalin cough* ever?

Please face the reality of violent disarmament. I personally won't give up my guns. Come the revolution, are you going to take them? Are you going to seek me out? Are you going to shoot me? And my family? What if I have a wife? Will you shoot her? This is the implication of your stance on gun control.

 

[Kair]

But don't you see that in the final product, communism, proving trust by owning firearms is like playing the "fall back" trust game on the tip of a volcano? It isn't reasonable.

Fair enough, you're effectively admitting you do not trust gun owners. So trust isn't the issue here.

Sure, freedom would be abundant in a truly communist society, but people would NOT carry guns. They would not be tempted to do so just because they have the right to.

You keep rewording this assertion without really justifying it. You haven't given me any reason to believe this would be the case. So far, it seems to boil down to certain communists having a personal or aesthetic distaste for guns and projecting that onto 'society'. If you want to make an argument that people would abandon guns because they present a danger to others by their existence, I think that is a reasonable argument. But then, you should drop the trust bit. It only serves to obfuscate.

In a socialist society, guns should DEFINITELY not be allowed, just as capitalizing would not be allowed. It simply does not work towards a better society.

I'm trying to limit this to gun control and not make it an argument about Marxism in general. But what you think "does not work towards a better society" is not likely to sway me on its own. So far, it's just an assertion without justification- one might call that an opinion. Once again, if it's a safety issue, that may be a good argument, but I don't see what that has to do with trust.

By the way, look at the third post below yours. That is a good example of the kind of people who support guns in the United States.

Uh huh. Do you really want me to start listing people who support gun control, starting with every dictator *cough Stalin cough* ever?

Please face the reality of violent disarmament. I personally won't give up my guns. Come the revolution, are you going to take them? Are you going to seek me out? Are you going to shoot me? And my family? What if I have a wife? Will you shoot her? This is the implication of your stance on gun control.

Well I never thought I would end up arguing for something as obviously necessary as gun control, so excuse me if my arguments don't properly convey my message.

Do I really need to explain further how people will not trust each other if they are made to believe it is necessary to own a gun? I am talking about the present day, not a future society. That is why you need gun control. It will not be completely necessary in a future society, as guns would not be produced, but right not it is DEFINITELY needed.